“Even if WMO agrees, I will still not pass on the data. We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it.“

I guess the main question coming out of the Muir Russell report is when is he going to be appointed to the House of Lords and his choice of appelation. Lord Muir of Holyrood?

They adopted a unique inquiry process in which they interviewed only one side – CRU. As a result, the report is heavily weighted towards CRU apologia – a not unexpected result given that the writing team came from Geoffrey Boulton’s Royal Society of Edinburgh.

The issue here is whether Wahl and Briffa violated IPCC rules. Asking Overpeck about this is not very helpful since Overpeck is hardly impartial. Muir Russell had to examine what Wahl and Briffa actually did and then examine the conduct against actual IPCC rules, not after-the-fact opinions by parties to the conduct.

The findings of the Fred Pearce Inquiry on this point stand:

These back channel communications between the paper’s authors [Wahl] and IPCC authors [Briffa], including early versions of the paper, seemed a direct subversion of the spirit of openness intended when the IPCC decided to put its internal reviews online.

Muir Russell said that it wasn’t the scientists weren’t to blame for defamatory language in emails, e.g. calling people “frauds”, “fraudit”, “bozos”, “morons” and so on. It was Microsoft’s fault.

They asked:

Indeed, some submissions have characterised them as ‗unprofessional‘, or as evidence of CRU‘s contribution to a ‗poisoned atmosphere‘ in climate science.

Muir Russell blamed email itself for the language:

14. Finding: The extreme modes of expression used in many e-mails are characteristic of the medium. Crucially, the e-mails cannot always be relied upon as evidence of what actually occurred, nor indicative of actual behaviour that is extreme, exceptional or unprofessional.

They observe:

Extreme forms of language are frequently applied to quite normal situations by people who would never use it in other communication channels.

But defamatory language by CRU scientists in emails is still defamatory language. That the scientists wouldn’t use such language face-to-face with the targets of their abuse is no justification. Ask Tiger Woods about email.

=============================

UPDATE from Anthony:

Yes, I’m sure Sir Muir didn’t think this was unprofessional…nooo. Pictures are worth a thousand words, but I doubt Sir Muir ever looked at this one:

I thought you might enjoy the forwarded picture and related commentary below.

I read some of the USHCN/GISS/CRU brouhaha on web site you sent us. It is both interesting and sad. It reminds me of a talk that Fred Singer gave in which he impugned the climate record by saying he didn’t know how different parts were put together. During the question part, Bob Livzey said, if you don’t know how it is done you should read the papers that describe it in detail. So many of the comments on that web page could be completely addressed by pointing people to different papers. Ah well, you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it think.

The notion that IPCC reports are supposed to present a selective view of climate science, representing the judgments of a select group of experts is in fact contrary to the mission of the IPCC.

The Muir Russell mischaracterization of the IPCC becomes relevant in the report when it uses the characterization as a criterion for evaluating the efforts revealed in the emails to minimize or exclude certain perspectives. For instance, the Muir Russell report explains with respect to one alleged instance of exclusion of peer reviewed literature from IPCC drafts that (p. 76):

Those within the [IPCC] writing team took one view, and a group outside it took another. It is not in our remit to comment on the rights and wrongs of this debate, but those within the team had been entrusted with the responsibility of forming a view, and that is what they did.

This speaks directly to problems of the IPCC, revealed to some degree by the emails, but of much broader concern. The IPCC is supposed to “identify disparate views” not hide them from view or take the side held by the author team. Had the Muir Russell review actually taken an accurate view of the IPCC, it is likely that its judgment about the appropriateness of the behaviors revealed by the emails would be considerably different.The Register/Orlowski:

Russell was appointed by the institution to investigate an archive of source code and emails that leaked onto the internet last November. The source code is not addressed at all. His report suggests that the problems were of the academics’ own making, stating that they were “united in defence against criticism”. Yet the enquiry found that despite emails promising to “redefine” the peer review publication process, and put pressure on journal editors, staff were not guilty of subverting the IPCC process, and their “rigour” and “honesty” were beyond question.

…

The panel avoided examining the scientific work of the CRU Team – as have the two other reviews of the leaked archive by Lord Oxburgh, and the Commons Select Committee on science. If the academics had used bats’ wings or tea leaves to create temperature reconstructions, that wasn’t a matter for any of the panels to judge. And this is undoubtedly a shortcoming. The voter is entitled to see the evidence and understand the arguments that may answer the question: “Is this climate thing anything to worry about?”

In the event, the inquiry conducted detailed analysis of only three cases of potential abuse of peer review. And it investigated only two instances where allegations were made that CRU scientists such as director Phil Jones and deputy director Keith Briffa misused their positions as IPCC authors to sideline criticism. On the issue of peer review and the IPCC, it found that “the allegations cannot be upheld”, but made clear this was partly because the roles of CRU scientists and others could not be distinguished from those of colleagues. There was “team responsibility”.

The report is far from being a whitewash. And nor does it justify the claim of university vice-chancellor Sir Edward Action that it is a “complete exoneration”. In particular it backs critics who see in the emails a widespread effort to suppress public knowledge about their activities and to sideline bloggers who want to access their data and do their own analysis.

Most seriously, it finds “evidence that emails might have been deleted in order to make them unavailable should a subsequent request be made for them [under Freedom of information law]”. Yet, extraordinarily, it emerged during questioning that Russell and his team never asked Jones or his colleagues whether they had actually done this.

===========================================

UPDATE:

The investigations thus far are much like having a trial with judge, jury, reporters, spectators, and defendant, but no plaintiff. The plaintiff is locked outside the courtroom sitting in the hall hollering and hoping the jury hears some of what he has to say. Is it any wonder the verdicts keep coming up “not guilty”? – Anthony Watts

What I understood from all of the e-mails that I read was mistaken and taken out of context. I am not able to comprehend the true nature of the intention of the authors based on their statements and actions.

Arctic chills down
“The Arctic shows no signs of warming, according to the latest data from the Danish Meteorological Institute’s Centre for Ocean and Ice. Last month, in fact, virtually every single day saw temperatures below the mean experienced over the last half-century. The Danish data – taken daily – casts doubt on climate models that had predicted a steady warming of the Arctic.”

[quote]
According to Dr David Viner 2000, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event

“Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said.”.
[Endquote]

So East Anglia University has examined itself and found itself to be without fault. Our confidence is restored.

“Meanwhile Professor Phil Jones, the former CRU director at the centre of many of the allegations, has taken up the new post of director of research within the unit.”
Glad to see at least somebody can find a new job these days.

In addition to this lack of open review of all of the issues from both sides; there is the issue of the release of these e-mails and other data itself.

We still see articles about the THEFT of these materials.

So WHO was it who STOLE these files ? And if you haven’t identified just WHO that was; then please QUIT CLAIMING THEY WERE STOLEN.

It is far more likely that someone inside the CRU assembled that FOIA2009 file, and placed it where it could be seen by anyone.

This outfit claims to have the longest documented climate data history; yet somebody from outsidecould dig around inside that huge data base, and find just those incriminating materials.
And they expect us to believe the files were stolen; rather than a whistleblower incident.

as someone else said recently, we are in the “Battle of the Bulge” stage of this war. The forces of Warmism know that they are on their last legs so they are throwing every political and journalistic asset they have into one final attempt to thwart the tide flowing against them. This is a no-holds barred fight – Smithsonian was enlisted to hand over it’s 40th anniversary issue to the cause (a magazine I promptly threw into the trash and will cancel accordingly) Blacklists are being prepared to throw out the heretics – these are all signs of a failing orthodoxy desperately striving to hang onto power and position.

But this doesn’t matter, because all we have to do is hold our positions until November. The real prize in this fight is whether or not the US is going to pass a vast climate control bill – no US bill, and any remaining support for this idea worldwide collapses once and for all. There are only about 30 effective days left in this session, and Sen. Byrd’s death probably made a climate change bill impossible to pass in the short time remaining. And once this Congress expires, Waxman-Markey expires and we get to start a brand new session with a far more conservative, anti-warmist House.

The wamists may win a few tactical battles this summer, but they’re still going to lose the war.

wws says: “as someone else said recently, we are in the “Battle of the Bulge” stage of this war. ”

Like every hysteria, the real war the warmists have is with public interest.

The truth is that the public have basically got fed up to the back teeth with the scare.

The real fight they have is to keep up a level of public hysteria that means the public will keep lapping up global warming scare stories, and that sufficient of them will keep writing to the politicians and teachers will keep thinking it a topical subject in which to indoctrinate their kids.

The two problems for the warmists are:

1. The boy who cried wolf too often has to cry: “alien predator … no a hundred alien predators”. The warmist have run every single conceivable scare based on every possible scrap of supportive evidence, and the public have heard it all before and to be frank can’t care a damn whether another lesser spotted goat frog is under threat … cause there still seems to be an awful lot of common lesser spotted goat frogs dead on the roads.

2. The more data you have the less spectacular it looks. Anyone can find a short term trend that looks like it is going spectacularly off the scale. But few can find a trend that continues to go off the page as more and more data become available. Technically known as improving signal to noise, the longer we have measurements, the less noise can falsely suggest a dramatic trend.

Unfortunately for the warmists , in the early days it was simple to trawl the population statistics of animal species or rates of tree deaths etc. etc. and sooner or later one could be found with a dramatic (noise induced) trend that could be blamed on mankind. But the more data you have, the more the noise averages out, and there is a rapid decline in the hysteria generating trends they need to keep the scare alive.

In short they need to keep public interest by finding bigger and bigger “wolves” to scare us with … just at the time the data is getting more and more boring.

I found the report’s effort to demonstrate that creating a temperature reconstruction was so simple that a caveman could do it fascinating. Two days to write a few hundred lines of code to process publicly accessible station data… of course we are advised not to draw any scientific conclusions but the results are remarkably similar to CRU’s, demonstrating that they couldn’t have done anything wrong…..

The problem is that most people just read the BBC headline. They won’t read the emails. If they do read them, they will read a couple of them. They will then be told that those had been “cherry picked”… then they will put Eastenders on, or the football, and that will be that.

Fact is, as a society we no longer deserve freedom. We are not hungry for it. We no longer care about truth, or details. We are brain dead. The best thing that can happen to humanity is a brutal alien invasion to fight against.

I understood that the contravention of the FOI act by the CRU had already been deemed illegal but because of the lapse of over 6 months, no charges could be brought. One would have expected a more concerned comment from the review.

And whatever happened to the police investigation into the “theft” of the e-mails? Weren’t there a lot of police specialists working on it? Perhaps thay have come up with an answer that is unpalatable to the powers that be.

You’ve been proven wrong. Swallow the worm. Now will anyone of you publish something to back any of your claims. Stop complaining about the others and do your own homework. Just proove your cast – that’s the same thing you’re asking from the other side. Well the best way to play that game is to play the same game and publish your work and findings – the blog sphere is just a place for yelling. I see very valuable skeptics theory, but i don’t see publications of them. And don’t come with the plot theory about publications being blocked – that’s not true. And please come with a publication that will not contained fixed data as we’ve seen last year. It would just be another blow for the skeptics camp.

To Pat : if it’s so darn cold in the Arctic (and getting even cooler), than how in the world does the ice makes it to melt this year ? Who are you trying to convince when the data is showing a melting conditions, god it even rained last week on the north pole.

“14. Finding: The extreme modes of expression used in many e-mails are characteristic of the medium. Crucially, the e-mails cannot always be relied upon as evidence of what actually occurred, nor indicative of actual behaviour that is extreme, exceptional or unprofessional.

They observe:

Extreme forms of language are frequently applied to quite normal situations by people who would never use it in other communication channels.”

They wrote these emails thinking that they would not be open to public scrutiny. What are we to believe, that they exaggerated and lied to each other in private but publicly only dispensed the truth? Many years ago I would read the Pravda press releases because they were so blatantly false and nonsensical they were amusing. I thought that our culture would never stoop to these kinds of statements that insult their citizen’s intelligence, but we have now for many years. Well, they can write this stuff with a straight face but let me assure you my reaction is quite different. They can pretend to tell the truth and I’ll pretend to believe them.
So someone wants to check your data. Imagine that. Thank God for Anthony and all of you people who contribute your training, energy and tenacity to this debate, and of course the internet. It’s getting harder and harder for people who have these kinds of powers to pull the wool over our eyes.

They “did not hide data”, but from whom? Of course the report can conclude that if it doesn’t touch what was hidden from the public, but rather concentrate on what was hidden from fellow scientists who didn’t ask too much.

What amazes me is that many news articles reporting on this still use the blanket term “climate change” when they mean “man made climate change”. I’m seeing more and more comments that point out this error all over the Internet when these articles are posted. I’m still seeing news reports that the data was always available. But they don’t talk about how the information specifying WHICH dataset was used was NOT available.

I think they have no choice but to whitewash the whole issue. But it’s self-defeating. Unless they’re more upfront about how they phrase things and actually state what is really going on, the public is going to be even more skeptical as time goes on. Not because of any data, but because of the behaviour of how things are reported. You cannot earn the trust of the public by using weasel phrases.

Here’s The Register, a scientifically-oriented UK site on the latest whitewash:http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/07/07/muir_russell_climategate_report/
It quotes this gem from Muir Russell without comment – [Sir Muir Russell even calls for “a concerted and sustained campaign to win hearts and minds” to restore confidence in the team’s work]. It seems like almost the whole of our society has succumbed to touchy-feely politics. Science is incompatible with this approach.

“We have the five alleged individuals allegedly involved in the alleged mugging that was alleged to have occurred last night — the alleged perpetrator, the alleged victim, and the three alleged witnesses.”

“No need to waste everyone’s time, Sergeant Beebe. Send everyone home and tell the alleged perpetrator to report to me for questioning in six months.”

Our cause is for an open and honest debate, and so long as you are able to tell us that we are just expressing sour grapes … then we are winning!

As for doing the engineering/science … sure like many others here, I’d be more than happy to set up a rival data gathering unit to the CRU and I’d be more than happy to ensure it had as neutral point of view on the subject by including those like yourself with views that contradict my own.

Except … I personally think the whole subject has been so undermined by the stupid petty politicing of the climategate crowd, that I doubt the public will believe anyone on the climate who says it is warming even if it were a sceptic like me!

If internal inquiries are acceptable on their face, why not just let the mafia, street gangs, drug dealers, and corporate and government criminals investigate for themselves any charges that are brought against them? Wouldn’t society benefit from the likelihood of reducing the burden on our courts and a costly prison population?

Lord Lawson, former Chancellor of the Exchequer under Margaret Thatcher, when interviewed on the BBC News at One o’clock today pointed out that, despite his repeated requests,
(1) the Muir Russell hearings were held in secret, without any public access, and
(2) no known sceptic was permitted (let alone invited) to give evidence.

Under those circumstances the only wonder is that Russell did manage to come up with some criticisms of CRU, albeit mild.

Starting with the Hutton Inquiry into the death of Dr. Kelly, Labour Prime Ministers and their acolytes have invariably managed to appoint those who can be relied upon to
bring in the report that is required and not the one that might emerge from the hearings. Those who watched the Hutton Inquiry were amazed that the Hutton Report relied so little on the evidence that had emerged during the Inquiry.

‘False but accurate’ is the best that can be said for climate science. And for the so-called reviews,
I have never heard of anyone calling a review credible that refused to analyze the claims and allegations against what is being reviewed. Except in climate science.

Imagine a civil case where the defendant gets to not only pick the judge and jury, but also gets to exclude the plaintiff.

The decision of the AGW community in choosing to avoid any actual reviews of climate science issues demonstrates painfully and clearly the lack of science at heart of this social movement.

Regg: July 7, 2010 at 10:24 amWell the best way to play that game is to play the same game and publish your work and findings – the blog sphere is just a place for yelling. I see very valuable skeptics theory, but i don’t see publications of them.

Don’t get out much, do you?

To Pat : if it’s so darn cold in the Arctic (and getting even cooler), than how in the world does the ice makes it to melt this year ? Who are you trying to convince when the data is showing a melting conditions, god it even rained last week on the north pole.

The Arctic does have a summer, you know — this happens to be it. As for rain on the North Pole, what’s so odd about that? You can have below-freezing surface temperatures in a cold front inversion and you stand a good chance of getting rained on for about five minutes– it’s fairly common in the US Middle Atlantic states in December.

The Muir Russell Report, or more properly whitewash, was entirely predictable from the moment its membership was announced. That this farce of an investigative body refused to make any effort at even handedness only adds to the shameful list that catalogues the retreat from reason in all areas of debate in Britain. It is profoundly disappointing!

I think this is really, really funny. Now let us assume that somebody of average intelligence was asked to report on this. Let us assume further that he is a believer and he doesn’t want to rock the AGW boat. How does he word it? Well what he does is to produce a report with plenty of criticisms of the indefensible while not thrusting a knife into anything vital. I am sure that would not be difficult.

But no, what we have is the beaurocratic mind at work. We have seen this again and again around the world. These are the sort of people who don’t realise that when an election comes out at 99.9% in favour of anything or anybody we all know it is a bogus sham. They never get it that 55.5% in favour and 43.5% against simply looks a lot more genuine.

So it is with whitewash. You have to be a painter, and not a particularly skilled one at that to get something that looks half plausible. But no, that risks being drummed out of the club. Everything has to be given great big dawbs of white paint, nothing else will do.

Stop complaining about the others and do your own homework. Just prove your cast – that’s the same thing you’re asking from the other side. Well the best way to play that game is to play the same game and publish your work and findings – the blog sphere is just a place for yelling.

Regg, whilst you may think this is a justifiable criticism, the problem as Lord Monkton told me is that “there’s just no money in being a sceptic”. I personally would love to have the time resources and institutional backing to formally present the many concerns I have over global warming. But to be frank I’ve wasted enough of my own time and money on the few publications I have done that I really can’t justify to my own family doing anything more than the odd post here.

But why should I have to prove global warming wrong by formal publication? The basis of science is simple: “scientists must prove they are right … it is not up to the sceptic to prove them wrong”.

It is not up to me to prove what created the apparent small increase in global temperatures last year – I don’t have the time money or to be frank the inclination to want to waste my time on such a fruitless exercise. However, I do have the time, education and experience to know for certain that the case for manmade global warming at the level suggested is entirely without proper scientific foundation.

George E. Smith says: July 7, 2010 at 9:37 am “We still see articles about the THEFT of these materials. So WHO was it who STOLE these files ? And if you haven’t identified just WHO that was; then please QUIT CLAIMING THEY WERE STOLEN.”

Theft is theft even if it was an inside job.

﻿
Baa Humbug says: July 7, 2010 at 9:24 am “So none of these panels/reviews want to examine the science?”

…All I can say to that is:
1.) I expected and predicted this was exactly what would happen.
2.) Nobody believes a word he says anymore, anyway, so putting him back in the CRU will negate all their future work, all of which (past and present) now becomes worthless.
3.) This brings science itself, and everyone involved in this shameful fraud into disrepute. Until someone is brought to book over this and suffers some form of punishment for it, climate scientists are going to be ignored by the public and derided by their peers.

We all knew from the start that no enquiry would be critical of the researchers carrying out their distorted science.
It’s another very sad day for the honour of the once great scientific establishment and must, for diligent and honourable scientists, be another day of great shame.
The one consolation is that the truth cannot be constrained for ever and the continuing failure of the CAGW models to accurately predict the climate into the future will prove that the science from climate research has been corrupt and shoddy.
The culprits have a temporary respite, but they will be brought to book eventually.

Actually mike, for an act to be theft you must be depriving the owner of the use of the items. Because the items were copied rather than moved, the owners retained use of the emails and so legally this was not a theft.

English Theft Act 1968 which defines it as:

“A person is guilty of theft, if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it”. (Section 1)

So, the one thing we can say with completely certainty is that there was no theft of the emails

Bill Tuttle says:
July 7, 2010 at 11:02 am
Regg: July 7, 2010 at 10:24 am
Well the best way to play that game is to play the same game and publish your work and findings – the blog sphere is just a place for yelling. I see very valuable skeptics theory, but i don’t see publications of them.

Don’t get out much, do you?

Regg was doing what Regg does. Lying. There is no monitor for rain at the North Pole! The north pole is moving ice.

Not necessarily. If someone was authorized to have access to the email server, and if there was no written policy in place forbidding their dissemination, then it was no more theft than if one party writes a check against an account with dual ownership.

The plain fact that a very aggressive investigation by the police has found nothing to indicate “theft” shows that whoever copied and disseminated the emails was authorized to do so. That could easily have been any of a few dozen individuals.

If you have any evidence of what you call “theft,” now is the time to post it.

From the BBC:
“The e-mails released last November amounted to about 0.3% of the material on the hacked UEA server, the panel said.

They explained that the remainder was in the hands of police investigating the breach. However, conditions imposed by the police had made it impossible for the team to go through all the rest of the material. “

So, 0.3% is a thorough review? Don’t expect anything from any more biased, whitewashed investigations. The conclusions are already in. Anyway, the weather and climate don’t care and that’s going to be the ultimate judge. I conditions falsify AGW these whitewashers are going to look really stupid.

Regg says:
July 7, 2010 at 10:24 am
You guys lost your cause. Just admit it.

You’ve been proven wrong. Swallow the worm. Now will anyone of you publish something to back any of your claims. Stop complaining about the others and do your own homework.

0.3% of emails were examined. Is that thourough?

The CRU would have been prosecuted over failure to comply with FOI requests if there had not been a 6 month statute of limitations.

We sceptics don’t have to publish a thing if we don’t want to. Those that make scientific claims are the ones who should provide the evidence. I suspect that in 5-10 years you will look at the weather and say to yourself “Where did it all go wrong?”.

I guess that the Encyclopaedia Britannica will have to update their entry for “whitewash” with a reference to the Russell Report.

How can you have an investigation into the “climategate” affair and ONLY ask those condemned by their own actions in those emails to exonerate themselves.

That nobody on the sceptical, or even neutral side of the “debate” was questioned is a travesty of justice and renders this report to be utterly without merit or credibility.

Allowing people who admit, in their own unguarded words, acts which amount to engaging in hiding data, bullying journals, manipulating data and perverting the science, to defend themselves by saying essentially that the evidence does not count because it is email, is like defending Raoul Moat by saying that his murder confession letter is not admissible, because he wrote it himself in pen and it has spelling errors in it.

(Raoul Moat is the nutter who is currently hiding out in the North Eastern UK countryside after shooting his ex-girlfriend, her lover and a police officer)

It is no surprise that the mainstream media, and especially the BBC are eating this stuff up, as the BBC journalists stopped any pretence at investigation or search or pursuit of truth many years ago.

To Pat : if it’s so darn cold in the Arctic (and getting even cooler), than how in the world does the ice makes it to melt this year ? Who are you trying to convince when the data is showing a melting conditions, god it even rained last week on the north pole.

“Last month, in fact, virtually every single day saw temperatures below the mean experienced over the last half-century. ” here or here. How can this be Regg?

We can gain much strength from the knowledge that we are many and well informed (as a result of the current freedom of the internet and sites like this this excellent blog), but we sceptics must be aware that the odds – of being able to effect the course of future history – are vastly stacked against us.

The Carbon Tax agenda is well underway (my electricity bill in Scotland is already paying into it, as I understand it).

Politicians, the UN, the banks, the oil companies, the media organisations (as we well know), they’re all behind it. They put their money behind it anyway. Sorry, I forgot the governments, they are really, totally behind it (and it’s not even their money they’re spending – it’s ours, the taxpayers!) After all, the politicians are bought and paid for by the corporate interests which really pull the effing strings of this grotesque puppet show.

So, while we people who are interested in the subject may be well informed, the vast majority of the western populace derive their opinions on world events through information presented by the mainstream media. Indeed they only become of world events through the MSM.

So they will read that the furore has died down, many investigations were carried out and no wrongdoing was detected, business as usual, nothing to see here, move on.

And we will all move on to Cancun and beyond.

It’s my opinion that what is happening in climate ‘science’ and the media ‘management’ of climate change, is JUST ONE EXAMPLE of how public opinion is being manipulated to facilitate some kind of ‘transition’ to a new state.

Whether that new state is a green economy, or a state of perpetual war (much like we already have, if you think about it), or, whatever.

All I’m saying is, these people (and there ARE people) behind this will not stop. And they have massive, overarching, overiding control. Of everything that matters to public opinion. They studied the work of Edward Bernais (Sigmund Freud’s nephew – father of PR) very well.

I am no end of satisfied. There were reasons for allegations that the AGW scam was a plot but without a smoking gun it was only one of many conspiracy theories. Then the smoking gun came in the form of CRU e-mails. Well of course there were reasons for allegations the plot was much wider and includes political circles. Now, these white-washing investigations produce the smoking guns proving the political level of the conspiracy like a production line providing added value to the e-mails.

This Telegraph piece is from the egregious regurgitator of press releases, Louise Gray.

But there is an unremarked footnote in Gray’s article that is not without interest:-

“The Met Office will continue to provide weather forecasts for the BBC. The 90-year contract was up for annual review and it had been suggested a New Zealand compay would provide forecasts after the ‘BBQ summer’ furore. But the BBC said the Met Office continues to provide the best service.”

Well, today’s full of surprises! (not!)

Just as “Climate Scientists”, handsomely paid to confirm that there is Global Warming and that this will lead to the end of the planet, find (gosh!) that CAGW is a ‘reality’.

And just as “Environment Correspondents” paid to serve up lashings of the latest scary ‘theory’, do just that.

And just as Government Scientific Advisors, selected from the ranks of true believers and paid to provide shroudwaving advice to Ministers, are happy to confirm that “the overwhelming weight of scientific evidence clearly shows (etc. etc.)…….”

So do the likes of Willis, Oxburgh & Russell, paid to do a whitewash job, close ranks and find that really, everything is just fine – nothing to see here.

You’d get more honesty (and perhaps even morality) from some poor street girl with a heroin habit.

It would appear that all the kings horses and all the kings men are unable to find any evidence of……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
well anything untoward.
No deception
No conspiracy
No subtifuge
No malfeasance
Nada.
However, neither are they able to control or predict the weather/climate and the climate will eventually make fools of them all.
They have been seduced by their own advertising and this , as sensible people know, is usually fatal.
They would do well to research the work of Vance Packard (too late now tho) His classic work, “HIDDEN PERSUADERS” might have helped.
Personally, i reject the conclusion that the language and sentiments contained in the e-mails is typical. It is outrageous,unacceptable and hopefully not representative of science and scientists in general.
If it is the case, as is inferred by this enquiry, then something is very very wrong

The first Widgery Inquiry did a whitewash job -Army innocent, protesters entirely to blame.
Nobody believed the crude whitewash job!
18 Apr 2010 … The Saville Inquiry into Bloody Sunday said Army completely to blame, protesters entirely innocent!
I hope climate science does not have to wait so long for honest science to replace bogus trickery.

“The exercise and comparison of all figures demonstrates that:
1. Any independent researcher may freely obtain the primary station data. It is
impossible for any group to withhold data.
2. It is impossible for any group to tamper improperly with data unless they have
done so to the GHCN and NCAR (and presumably the NMO) sources
themselves.
3. The steps needed to create a temperature trend are straightforward to
implement.
4. The computer code necessary is straightforward to write from scratch and
could easily be done by any competent programmer.
5. The shape obtained in all cases is very similar: in other words if one does the
same thing with the same data one gets very similar results.
6. The result does not depend significantly on the exact list of stations.
7. Adjustments make little difference.

By performing this simple test one determines easily that the results of the CRUTEM
analysis follow directly from the published description of the method, and that the
resultant temperature trend is not significantly different from the other results
regardless of stations used or adjustments made. The test is therefore sufficient to
demonstrate that, with respect to the declared method, the CRUTEM analysis does not contain either error or adjustments which are responsible for the shape of the resultant temperature trend.”

Adolf Balik says:
July 7, 2010 at 12:15 pm
I am no end of satisfied. There were reasons for allegations that the AGW scam was a plot but without a smoking gun it was only one of many conspiracy theories. Then the smoking gun came in the form of CRU e-mails. Well of course there were reasons for allegations the plot was much wider and includes political circles. Now, these white-washing investigations produce the smoking guns proving the political level of the conspiracy like a production line providing added value to the e-mails.

That’s a great synopsis Adolf, that’s exactly the way I see it and I’m making sure as many people as possible have a chance to see it that way too. That’s the reality of it.

This entire episode has nothing whatsoever to do with “finding the truth” or “identifying wrong-doing”.
Climategate broke when Ed Miliband (Millepede the Younger) was Secretary of State at the newly created Department of Energy and Climate Change from 3 October 2008 to 11 May 2010. He was, and remains, a green nutter with absolutely no understanding of anything to do with science. Google him to see his “career”!
Millepede the Younger has been succeded by Chris Huhne who is of the opinion that 2,500 MORE windmills will meet all of the UK’s energy needs for the next decade or longer. ( http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1285898/Chris-Huhne-pushes-tougher-action-climate-change-mean-wind-farms.html)
The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, previously Millepede and now Huhne, has at his disposal millions of pounds Sterling to allocate for “research”.
Nobody who has any form of connection with the UAE is going to do anything at all to jeopardise the chances of that institution of getting its snout deep into that financial trough. Muir Russell accepted a pay rise which raised a few eyebrows in 2007. (http://www.heraldscotland.com/pound-23-000-pay-rise-for-university-principal-1.871413) He’s “one of the boys” and has done his mates a favour which, no doubt, will be called in in the future.
There’s been no “investigation”, it has all been an exercise in “scratch your back, now scratch mine”.
And the British public know it.

6 July: BBC Richard Black: Climate data: what’s hidden?
Certainly there have been differences between the various inquiries carried out so far – notably (as Fred Singer correctly reminded me during the week) that they’ve examined different areas of climate science…
It’s (Muir Russell) taken the longest of the inquiries, and would appear to be the most thorough, although there are areas in which you could reasonably argue it could have been more thorough – indeed the team admitted as much, but pointed out that it actually had to finish and reach a conclusion sometime…
The Muir Russell team investigated this by just about the simplest method you could think of. They downloaded the data themselves from public databases, and wrote a computer program that would combine the datapoints into a temperature record for the instrumental period.
The entire process took less than two days. All the data they needed was freely available, writing the code was a cinch, and it produced a curve similar to the ones produced by CRU and its counterparts in the US and Japan.
Anyone competent in the field could do the same, the inquiry team elaborated. You can take out data points you don’t like, you can apply whatever correction factors you want (such as the one that Nasa’s GISTEMP series uses to compensate for the dearth of measuring stations across the Arctic), and you can therefore end up with a temperature curve that might look a little different: but don’t say it can’t be done, because it can.
And while the university should have responded much better to Freedom of Information requests – which the university admits – many of the FoI requests came, the Muir Russell panel said, from competent people who should have known that the data is freely available and can easily be processed.
The Muir Russell report won’t satisfy everyone that everything is rosy in the bed of climate science – and of course, it hasn’t investigated whether the overall IPCC picture of climate science is sound, because to do that you’d need a very different sort of panel…
It might be thought notable, however, that criticism from the most prominent “sceptical” commentators and bloggers has so far concentrated on issues such as openness and dealing with FoI (Global Warming Policy Foundation), whether IPCC rules on data submission were broken (Climate Audit) or the job of an IPCC author (Bishop Hill), rather than hidden data or the lack of an impact on the overall picture of global climate change….http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/07/i_started_mondays_post_with.html

the above follows Richard’s last post with its ‘scare sceptics’ tactics:

5 July: BBC Richard Black: Dutch courage for climate mainstream
The Canadian National Post and Financial Post newspaper group is being sued for libel by Canadian scientist Andrew Weaver – a particularly interesting action, in that it seeks to make the paper liable for readers’ comments appended to articles as well as for the articles themselves.
There’s a chance, I gather, that even more explosive libel suits may followhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/07/dutch_courage.html

7 July: gwpf: Benny Peiser: Investigation Into Climategate Inquiries Announced
The Global Warming Policy Foundation has criticised the Independent Climate Change Email Review for a lack of openness and transparency in its inquiry. In response, the GWPF has announced that it has commissioned its own investigation into the way the three Climategate inquiries have been set up, how they were conducted an how they arrived at their conclusions.
The investigation will be conducted by Andrew Montford. Andrew Montford is the author of The Hockey Stick Illusion: Climategate and the Corruption of Science, a history of some of the events leading up to the release of emails and data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. The findings of the report will be published at the end of August…http://www.thegwpf.org/climategate/1204-investigation-into-climategate-inquiries-announced.html

Perhaps you should look into the background of Muir Russell, his role in the construction of the Scottish Parliament building in Edinburgh and the comments about his conduct by the investigation into the vast overspend, as well as how firmly Glasgow University is part of the Establishment in Scotland.

You would then see exactly why he was chosen.

Then, of course, you could start to look at the UEA, in general, and the links it had to the people in power in the 1980’s and 90’s, and how many of them are still in Government and policy-making circles.

Excerpt from the Register article on the matter:To reach this particular conclusion, for example, the report finds a criterion: a “consistence of view” with earlier work. The earlier work here was in fact produced the academics under scrutiny. So, having compared the CRU academics’ work against their previous work, and found it to be consistent, they are cleared of malpractice.

Got that? Because the investigation found that the actors has acted consistently –with malice aforethought– they were then cleared of any misdeeds, if only that they continued to do such.

That’s one heck of a legal argument, that. I wonder if a real criminal might make use of it in a court of criminal law?

The climate data that CRU dragged it’s feet kicking & screaming on FOIA release showed no significant warming the past 10-15 years.
To say that the Climate Unit did not hide data is to play with the words to give a false impression.
Spin.

“The plain fact that a very aggressive investigation by the police has found nothing to indicate “theft” shows that whoever copied and disseminated the emails was authorized to do so. That could easily have been any of a few dozen individuals.”

People with unfettered access to an Exchange server? More like countable on one hand. Which makes the list of possible suspects for an internal leak very short indeed. And the capabilities of the alleged external hacker(s) all the more astonishing. There’s also something very rotten going on in discussions of this investigation – notice that they continually refer to “the CRU server”. What’s wrong with this is that in order to hack and mine for the correct emails the outsider would have needed to crack the University’s exchange server, which is a whole league more serious than the hacking of a machine sitting in the CRU itself, yet no where is it alleged that the UEA’s exchange server itself was hacked.

I am now watching the Biased Broadcasting Corporation’s Newsnight report on this latest whitewash. 3 interviewees in the studio. 2 warmists and 1 skeptic. As ever, loading the deck, and giving at least twice the airtime to the warmist propaganda.

The final item of the Today programme on the radio this morning, previewing the release of the whitewash contained 2 interviews. A Guardian journalist and Lord Stoned. Same old same old.

Just about everyone I speak to these days just does not believe the religious zealotry coming out of government, “science”, or the BBC.

When will they give it up?

Based on the BBC pension fund investments in “green energy” etc, probably never.

Worth reading what Dr. Evan Harris, from a previous CRU investigation had to say about this. I don’t know about anyone else, but this really bothers me:

““The response of sceptic groups, like the Global Warming Policy Foundation, in rejecting all three enquiries merely demonstrates that conspiracy theorists and the anti-science brigade are never satisfied by due process and scientific methods and it is more important that such groups are marginalised by policy-makers.” [Emphasis mine]

While climate researchers protest for their own credibility, Chinese industry aims it’s might in posthoc support of the AGW cause. Newly assembled domestic vehicles should cost less and have enhanced Sino-content, lol.

BTW, it’s good to see the BBC maintain their warmist stance in the face of funding cutbacks. They can make up the difference by appealing environmental trusts.

I am surprised to see that on WUWT, all in the UK are well and truly aware that the BBC does not need to think because it “knows”.

Just the same as The Guardian “knows” and has its 10:10 campaign. The news media used to employ journalists, even the odd investigatory one (rare and endangered species, maybe I should contact WWF, but they can’t all have taken up wrestling) , now they employ “campaign mangers”.

How about a totally new idea where the UK MSM report the news, investigate it and report their findings, rather than being hell bent on making the news?

The Guardian makes claims of what influence its campaign will have had by October? Very much like the wonderful BBC statement “and on the news tomorrow”?

“The BBC thinks” no sir, no longer. The BBC is strictly “on message” and on a mission, along with The Guardian and the real green, socially aware Rupert Murdoch Sky machine.

with its program being entirely on should we trust the scientists, interspersed with BBC talking points and interviews re:

7 July: BBC World Sce: What would be the impact of summers without ice in the Arctic?
Many scientists predict that the Arctic Ocean will be completely free of summer ice within the next 50 years.
What impact would that have for the region and the rest of the world?
One Planet reporter Richard Hollingham joined a scientific expedition that is attempting to find out.http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/news/2010/07/100707_arctic_op_sl.shtml

yet BBC Talking Point/Have Your Say website today has NOT a mention of this program anywhere, even tho the website page – http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/ – is up-to-date and has the above Arctic article on the page. in fact, i almost felt i imagined the whole thing, except for this in an completely unrelated blog:

7 July: Beliefnet: Rod Dreher: How trustworthy are scientists anyway?
This morning on the way into the office, I heard a radio discussion on the BBC on whether or not scientists and researchers ought to be more open for scrutiny in the wake of the East Anglia climate office scandal. One commenter said yes, because scientists should want their research open for public scrutiny, because that’s precisely how science improves. Another said no, not really, because public debate can be so abusive these days; researchers are loath to open themselves up to the kind of viciousness that’s routine nowadays…
On the BBC debate, one listener wrote that of course we should trust scientists, because our only other choice is to trust religious leaders, which is obviously (in his view) unacceptable…http://blog.beliefnet.com/roddreher/2010/07/how-trustworthy-are-scientists-anyway.html

There is not one person at Kos’s site who knows anything about Muir Russell. Even I don’t know much about him, except what I’ve read here. They believe from the bottom of their hearts that he is independent. They believe that he and his panel interviewed critics.

If any other Kos site haunters besides me ever come here, I would like to see them pipe up.

They do have some critical faculties in some areas. But it is amazing how little in the area of climate warming.

I was literally threatened with being blackballed when I posted a story about swine flu that disagreed with the status quo there – an article in which European governments complained that they had been had by the swine flu makers. In it I pointed out that there were two sides to this story.

In another story I asked why I couldn’t find any links to scientific papers on Kos’ site, but that on the climate denier sites there were links to studies all over the place. It must have been that one slid by the censors.

I don’t even recommend anyone here actually read the story link above, except to see how easily they swallow their side of the story and accept Muir Russell as independent. At no point do they give his bona fides, tell what his connections might be or might not be, in order to SHOW that he is independent. They simply declare it and then accept his whitewash as a valid and objective inquiry.

So, I float between two worlds – sometimes agreeing with them and sometimes I think the people here are a bunch of fine fellows. Both sides in the wider picture have blinders on – about something. I am sure I do, too. I try to not have them. I have to pull my punches from time to time – but sometimes I let fly. For example, climate warming is pretty much the only thing I ever agreed with George W Bush about. Some common ground was bound to show up somewhere.

The wamists may win a few tactical battles this summer, but they’re still going to lose the war.

I was thinking, “Years from now, when the warmist predictions all come out like the ones about no snow in England and kids having to be told what it was, and the real world convinces everyone that warming has not happened, this review will be looked at as a small footnote, and anyone who looks it up will wonder how the CRU data fudgers were ever believed or supported by anyone.”

Yes, they will lose the war – because reality is reality. Spin-producing reviews mean nothing when 100 years of no warming haven’t brought on the end of mankind.

Proponents of large positive CO2 feedbacks have pointed to various ‘fingerprints’ which are absent, or refuse to manifest themselves. Greenhouse gas warming was supposed to create a telltale warming of the troposphere, but instrumental readings show no such evidence. More recently, they have posited that CO2 must have caused warming, but this is still trapped in the oceans. This “missing heat” has yet to be found, and in the Climategate archive we find US scientist Kevin Trenberth expressing frustration: “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t,” adding that “we can’t definitively explain why surface temperatures have gone down in the last few years. That’s a travesty!”

For Trenberth, if we had better instruments, we’d find the heat. For skeptics, the heat might not be there.

Many will join Trenberth in his angst. His kind will bemoan the travesty of that lack of warming. In a decade or two, the rest of the world will begin to bemoan the travesty of the entire climate warming silliness. In several decades the bemoaning of the travesty will be ubiquitous.

My first thoughts after beginning to try to track down the science behind the claims were basically, “Holy crap! It’s nothing but Chicken Little.”

The whole world will know that, long before the year 2100.

Anthropogenic global warming will be the travesty, in most people’s minds.

P.S. This is the first time I’ve seen CRU founder Lamb’s temperature graph from 1990 (see page 1 of the article if you haven’t seen it before). Awesome. YES, that is the real MWP and the real LIA.

O, Brian Norman Roger Rix, wherefore art thou?
O, Baron Rix, CBE your services are in dire need. A job awaits you, travel involved. You will be required to play matinee in the House of Commons, first house in the Lords and second house in Holyrood, with the occasional mid-week matinee for the BBC in East Anglia. Lots of opportunity for misquotes, innuendos, double entendres, trousers around ankles, and, and, and I can promise you it will run longer than The Mouse Trap!!

Bring long johns and vest they will definitely be the order of the day. And my 15% of course, plus your obligatory carbon credits, got a good mover for them out here on the Fens, he says they fly out to the Far East.

Brian, as you often remarked “there is no business like show business!” Or is there?

It can take up to 40 years for a scientific hoax to be accepted as a hoax. In the meantime, anyone questioning the hoax is likely to be attacked.

Charles Dawson (1864 – 1916) was an amateur British archaeologist who is credited and blamed with discoveries that turned out to be imaginative frauds, including that of the Piltdown Man which he presented in 1912.

Questions about the Piltdown find were raised from the beginning, first by Arthur Keith, but also by paleontologists and anatomists from the American Smithsonian and from Europe. Those disputing the find were attacked in very personal terms. Challenges to Piltdown Man arose again in the 1920s, but were again dismissed. In 1949, further questions were raised about the Piltdown Man and its authenticity, which led to Piltdown proven conclusively a hoax in 1953.

In 2003, Dr Miles Russell published the results of his investigation into Dawson’s antiquarian collection and concluded that at least 38 specimens were clear fakes. Russell has noted that Dawson’s whole academic career appears to have been “one built upon deceit, sleight of hand, fraud and deception, the ultimate gain being international recognition”. (From Wikipedia)

They are so far behind the curve. This rear guard action means little. The damage has been done. Climategate was the TIPPING POINT.

In any public perception issue, there is a period when one side has the ball in their court and while that is so, the public only hears their side, so the public accepts what they hear, not having any reason to doubt it (except for a few iconoclastic SOB contrarians who are demonized and marginalized as well as possible).

But comes the TIPPING POINT, and the veil is pulled off the eyes of the public. It does not have to be enough to convince the public that the contrarians are correct. It is enough that the public begins to look and listen critically, considering that there might be more than one side to the issue.

Once the public’s eyes are opened, well. . . . you can’t put the genie back in the bottle.

Whitewashes after everyone knows they were dickwads – hahahahahaha. CRU is a laughing stock. Who cares what office Phil Jones occupies now? The IPCC is fading in its power, scientists in other fields look at CRU as data fudgers and “those guys who gave science a bad name.” Those other scientists are not likely to forgive and forget and jump on that bandwagon again.

THAT IS THE MAIN THING! Their mojo is OVAH!

Climate science will go back to the backwater where it spent its first century. Like a rock group, CRU will be semi-prominent on “What Ever Happened to _______” lists.

This review means NOTHING. Their mojo ended in November through February, when everyone got to see how they were distorting everything over at the good old IPCC. Climategate took the wheels right out from under Copenhagen, and the emails got read by enough people. Then Glaciergate, Pachaurigate and Amazongate were total embarrassments.

Putting Bandaids on their owies doesn’t give them back their prominence. And at this stage it doesn’t matter if we are right or they are.

The main thing is that the world woke up. They don’t get a free ride anymore.

So let us not fret over their medics’ attentions to their wounds, or with their rear guard actions. Their offensive was beaten back, and the most they can expect from now on is trench warfare and stalemate. The science from our side is no longer looked at as extremist positions. Their efforts to control peer review will never again go unmonitored. Peer reviewers will give both sides more or less equal shrift.

feet2thefire says:
July 7, 2010 at 6:16 pm[–snip for brevity–]
BOTH SIDES ARE BEING HEARD! Isn’t that what we really wanted?

Yes, both sides are being heard. However, those whom control the MSM are making bloody damned sure that the truth is given such short shrift as to be a faint whisper amidst the flamethrower mouths of the talking heads on the TEE VEE.

You’d be lucky to even read –or hear– of a contrary opinion which hasn’t been attenuated to the point of meaninglessness.

From where I see things, it’s largely places such as WUWT which are ‘getting the word out,’ because otherwise the word isn’t well known at all.

jaymam says:
July 7, 2010 at 6:05 pmIt can take up to 40 years for a scientific hoax to be accepted as a hoax. In the meantime, anyone questioning the hoax is likely to be attacked.
[–snip for brevity–]
Russell has noted that Dawson’s whole academic career appears to have been “one built upon deceit, sleight of hand, fraud and deception, the ultimate gain being international recognition”. (From Wikipedia)

That begins to sound familiar, like the many con men of banking.

In fact, the name ‘Maurice Strong’ seems to fit that description quite readily …

jaymam says:
July 7, 2010 at 6:05 pmIt can take up to 40 years for a scientific hoax to be accepted as a hoax. In the meantime, anyone questioning the hoax is likely to be attacked.
[–snip for brevity–]
In 2003, Dr Miles Russell published the results of his investigation into Dawson’s antiquarian collection and concluded that at least 38 specimens were clear fakes. Russell has noted that Dawson’s whole academic career appears to have been “one built upon deceit, sleight of hand, fraud and deception, the ultimate gain being international recognition”. (From Wikipedia)

The following notes all apply to the Piltdown Man hoax, but they seem amazingly relevant today!:

As a matter of practice, a fraud or hoax is much more likely to succeed if it appears to be validated by an authority. In general, one does not expect a professional in a field to concoct a hoax. Experience teaches that this expectation is not always met.

Although the team had excellent credentials none was truly competent in dealing with hominid fossils; their expertise lay elsewhere. The British museum people, Woodward and Pycraft, made numerous errors of reconstruction and interpretation.

a key reason why the hoax succeeded was because it fit in very well with the theories of the time.

Far from being a triumph of Science the hoax points to common and dangerous faults. The hoax succeeded in large part because of the slipshod nature of the testing applied to it; careful examination using the methods available at the time would have immediately revealed the hoax.

The hoax illuminates two pitfalls to be wary of in the scientific process. The first is the danger of inadequately examining and challenging results that confirm the currently accepted scientific interpretation. The second is that a result, once established, tends to be uncritically accepted and relied upon without further reconsideration.

Mike, if someone breaks into your home and takes a picture of your wife’s jewellry try claiming theft on the insurance policy. The emails and files were copied and distributed without permission. All of the information inthe emails and files should have been available for public perusal under the FOIA, so yes, they were taken and distributed without permission, but stolen? No, afraid not.

I’ve wondered all along if there are more emails and files out there and there is a second shoe waiting to drop.

As for Prof Jones, he’s a busted flush, and he’ll know it. He will be aware he’s had a very lucky acquittal, but knows he can’t find himself in court again. He will also know that the outcome of “inquiries” of the type held by Sir Muir aren’t held in high esteem by the British public, like Widgery (Bloody Sunday) and Hutton (Iraq War/Death of Dr. Kelly), the Establishment gets temporary relief with a cover-up, but the facts remain the same, and are still out there for future investigations. Prof Jones is ruined and he knows that his conduct was and continues to be unacceptable, and that time, like the tide, will eventually catch up with him.

“if we dont agree with their findings, then their findings are clearly wrong. amirite?”

Probably, but it’s not the findings that are the issue it’s the lack of rigor in the inquiry. It was held in private, and the only witnesses were the accused, the judges had links to the beliefs espoused by the accused and evidence showing potential malfeasance was ignored. The judges also took views about the IPCC procedures that weren’t true, and simultaneously let the accused off the hook. Amirite?

Wouldn’t it be priceless if the same person(s) inside UEA would send out another batch of e-mails/ documents now, making a total fool of all these whitewash artists?

I’ve been expecting that at any moment. Whoever did it may have thought one batch was good enough, or he/she may not have. If there is more, it may account for why Phil Jones hightailed it out at the very beginning. (On the other hand, it may have been Jones himself. He was one of my early choices.) But the person may have left some in reserve – in which case the CRU crew may have been waiting all this time for the other shoe to drop.

feet2thefire says:
July 7, 2010 at 6:16 pm
[–snip for brevity–]
BOTH SIDES ARE BEING HEARD! Isn’t that what we really wanted?

Yes, both sides are being heard. However, those whom control the MSM are making bloody damned sure that the truth is given such short shrift as to be a faint whisper amidst the flamethrower mouths of the talking heads on the TEE VEE.

There are probably 5 to 10 times as many people now who keep track of some of this and have familiarized themselves on the topic. All the polls show big increases in awareness of the counter arguments. The shady dealings have been noted by millions and millions.

Did you go to the link? I don’t know if Solomon’s assessment is right on, but if it is even close, a LOT has been accomplished. And people ARE awake to it. The warmers are in denial and hoping they can get their momentum back, but it ain’t gonna happen. The entire dynamic is different.

The people don’t have to agree with every point we make. They just need to be alert to the shennanigans – and they are, to a pretty fair degree. Just because the MSM is pushing something doesn’t mean people are swallowing it. You are giving the MSM too much credit.

The British Establishment is a strange organism which, throughout its history, fiercely cares for, protects and enriches its membership and ruthlessly crushes ‘outsiders’ who question it or pose a threat to it in any way. Universities and the BBC are parts of the establishment and will protect each other and will be protected at great cost to the ordinary taxpayer. But there is a ‘tipping point’ which will occur when, as in the historic Poll Tax riots, when the British public will no longer tolerate being lied to and stolen from . The American War of Independence had its roots in the anger of ordinary Brit colonists who objected so fiercely to being taxed without representation that they defeated the armed forces sent to bring them into line by the establishment of the day.
All of the enquiries instituted by the recently-departed Labour Government have been of a similar nature, but the truth has a habit of eventually emerging.
As an example, I note that the calls for a new enquiry into the alleged suicide of Dr Kelly, the WMD inspector, are gathering momentum since the fact emerged that for Dr Kelly, cutting his own wrist to bring about his death was a physical impossibility for him due to an elbow injury that rendered him incapable of even cutting his own steak at dinner!
While the Establishment will purr in satisfaction with another enquiry agreeably disposed of, public pressure to reveal the truth will eventually carry the day; there are too many rational sceptics to lose, in the end.

From my long experience of auditing any audit which finds nothing wrong hasn’t been done properly. Especially 3 of them. When the piper alpha rig blew up some years ago a major criticism was that it had been frequently audited and nothing had ever been found wrong, even though the faults were patently evident. Whitewash.

“Last month, in fact, virtually every single day saw temperatures below the mean experienced over the last half-century. The Danish data – taken daily – casts doubt on climate models that had predicted a steady warming of the Arctic.””

What “data” exactly? The “adjusted”, “homogenised” data? Well, we know the CRU “lost” the raw, vitally important, data after moving to new offices, and there is no mistaking that in e-mails from Jones.

PAH! I am keeping my can of whitewash for it’s intended purpose, slapping it on a wall!

Every soldier knows that the more of your own guys that get wounded, the more of the wounded you have to carry, the less likely that you are making progress. Jones, Mann et-al should have been left behind for the good of the AGW movement. We skeptics should be glad that the warmists show such willingness to drag their wounded. It dooms their mission.

I have just done a quick scan of relevant articles in the CIFGreen part of the Grauniad blog. Moonbat and the editorial writers are unconsciously funny, being very condescending and I-told-you-so about the MR report, but the great majority of comments in reply are scathing, so I feel that the Grauniad’s readership is not toeing the Grauniad generally Warmist line. Fred Pearce does make some sense, in a limited manner, but the paper has generally gone back to it’s original stance on CAGW, and to heck with us evil deniers!

“Wouldn’t it be priceless if the same person(s) inside UEA would send out another batch of e-mails/ documents…”

It is obvious that whoever publicly posted the East Anglia emails and the Harry_Read_ Me file had/has access to all the emails on the server. According to Phil Jones the posted emails comprise only a small fraction of the total.

Since the poster had the requisite knowledge to get away with outing the CRU crew, while avoiding being caught by the large police task force assigned to determine his identity, he certainly must also have had the foresight to keep the rest of the emails and other incriminating files in his possession, as insurance.

It is that likelihood that has kept anyone from claiming that anything in the posted emails or in the Harry_Read_Me file was faked. Not one of the senders or recipients of any email has stated that they are not 100% genuine.

The Kelly link is broken. Here is another. And comments on Kelly at Climate Audit.

Kelly comments:

I take real exception to having simulation runs described as experiments (without at least the qualification of ‘computer’ experiments). It does a disservice to centuries of real experimentation and allows simulations output to be considered as real data. This last is a very serious matter, as it can lead to the idea that real ‘real data’ might be wrong simply because it disagrees with the models! That is turning centuries of science on its head.

Having passed the half-way mark in reading this report, I’m left with an impression that reminds me of the response of over-protective, over-bearing parents summoned to the Principal’s office because the behaviour of their bullying little brat is causing disturbances in the schoolyard: “Oh, but all children act this way, and you shouldn’t pick on our little Johnnie because whatever else he might have done could not possibly have been his fault.”

But there is a silver lining to the cloud that hangs over this report: Appendix 5: Peer Review by Richard Horton, editor of The Lancet. Definitely worth a read.

It’s also worth noting that, unlike Rusell and his “team”, Horton appears to have read Montford’s The Hockey Stick Illusion.

It is titled: Climategate: reinstating Phil Jones is good news – the CRU brand remains toxic

This is because Russell’s “Not Guilty” verdict has been seized upon as an excuse to reinstate Phil Jones at the University of East Anglia CRU, this time as Director of Research. That is very good news. It spells out to the world that the climate clique looks after its own; that there is no more a culture of accountability and job forfeiture for controversial conduct in AGW circles than there is in parliamentary ones; that it is business as usual for Phil and his merry men. Or, to put it more bluntly, the brand remains toxic.

Apart from Michael “Hockeystick” Mann, there is no name more calculated to provoke cynical smiles in every inhabited quarter of the globe than that of Phil Jones. The dogs in the street in Ulan Bator know that he and his cronies defied FOI requests and asked for e-mails to be deleted and that people only do that if they have something to hide. Every time some UN-compliant government or carbon trading interest group tries to scare the populace witless with scorched-earth predictions of imminent climate disaster and cites research from the East Anglia CRU – of which Phil Jones is Director of Research – it will provoke instant scepticism.

Throughout the article he makes several valid points. One to remember is that the whitewash may be a blessing in disguise.

The most damning document released was the “Harry_read_me.txt”. It is the most astonishing condemnation of the scientific credentials of the CRU. Why was this document not investigated? Do we know the meaning of ” a very artificial correction”? Has the original data (assuming it hasn’t been lost) been compared to the presults of this program? What programs, exactly, have been used to to generate reconstructed temperature records?

This is a sad commentry on British science. (I am a scientist and a Brit). How can we possibly condone such a slipshod attempt to sanitise 3rd rate science? The fact that the University of East Anglia has appointed Jones as director of research says a great deal about the standards of some of our universities.

The only good point is that no responsible scientist will now accept the authority of the CRU as expert in in climate science.

Judging by recent news headlines, it looks like most ‘liberals’ still regard global warming catastrophe skepticism to be an artifact of ‘big business’ machinations. As long as this large group continues to believe that a heroic effort is necessary to save our planet from anthropogenic destruction, I think we can expect to see a continued strong push to encode measures to avert this supposed crisis into the law of the land.